Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

well-architected

6-pillar architecture review framework. Adapted from AWS Well-Architected for use by great_cto's architect agent on every non-nano ARCH document. Forces explicit answers across operational excellence, security, reliability, performance, cost, and sustainability — not just feature design.

41estrelas
Atualizado há 4 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: MIT

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add avelikiy/great_cto

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/well-architected/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/well-architected)

Skills relacionadas

Ver todas de Documentos →

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Documentos toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Documentos. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

Well-Architected — 6 pillars to verify before shipping

Every ARCH document for non-nano work must answer the 6 pillar questions below. Skipping a pillar is allowed only if explicitly justified (e.g. "Sustainability: N/A — backend-only, runs in shared infra.").

This is adapted from AWS Well-Architected (lens: small-team SaaS / LLM applications), trimmed to questions that matter at <10 engineer scale.

Pillar 1 — Operational excellence

Questions

  1. Observability: What metrics, logs, traces do we emit? How do we

tell from a dashboard if this is working in prod?

  1. Deployability: How do we ship a change? CI gates? Rollback path?
  2. Runbooks: When this breaks at 3am, what does on-call read?

Pass criteria

  • ✅ One metric per business outcome (e.g. webhook-deliveries-acked)
  • ✅ One log line per request, with request-id correlatable across services
  • ✅ Deploy path is documented and tested (rollback dry-run executed)
  • ✅ Runbook covers top-3 failure modes from pre-mortem

Common fail

❌ "We'll add monitoring later." Monitoring is part of the feature.

Pillar 2 — Security

Questions

  1. Trust boundaries: Where does untrusted data enter? How is it

validated/sanitized?

  1. Authn / authz: Who can call this? Who can read/write the data?
  2. Secrets: Where are API keys, DB passwords, JWT signing keys stored?
  3. Data classification: PII? PHI? PCI cardholder data? What's the

retention policy?

Pass criteria

  • ✅ Every external input has explicit validation at the boundary
  • ✅ Authz is enforced at the data layer, not just UI
  • ✅ Secrets in env vars or secret manager, never in source
  • ✅ Sensitive data classified and retention policy defined

Common fail

❌ "JWT validates the user, that's our authz." JWT is authentication. Authorization is separate (this user can read THIS row).

Pillar 3 — Reliability

Questions

  1. Failure modes: What happens when a downstream dependency is slow

/ down / corrupted?

  1. Idempotency: Can a retried request safely re-execute?
  2. Backups & recovery: What's the RPO (data-loss tolerance)? RTO

(downtime tolerance)? Test plan for both?

  1. Capacity: What's the max QPS this can handle? What happens at 1.5x that?

Pass criteria

  • ✅ Circuit breakers / timeouts on external calls
  • ✅ State-mutating endpoints accept idempotency keys
  • ✅ Backups documented + restore tested in the last 90 days
  • ✅ Load test exists; results in docs/perf/

Common fail

❌ "Postgres has backups." Backups without a tested restore aren't backups.

Pillar 4 — Performance efficiency

Questions

  1. SLOs: What's the p50/p95/p99 latency target? Error rate?

Availability?

  1. Bottlenecks: Profile the critical path — what's the slowest step?
  2. Caching: What's cacheable? Cache invalidation strategy?
  3. Scaling: Vertical or horizontal? Auto-scale rules?

Pass criteria

  • ✅ SLO numbers in the ARCH doc (not "fast enough")
  • ✅ Profile attached for non-trivial requests
  • ✅ Cache strategy documented; invalidation explicit
  • ✅ Scaling decision justified by data, not "feels right"

Common fail

❌ "Database can handle it." Quantify: queries/sec, row count, index hit rate.

Pillar 5 — Cost optimization

Questions

  1. Hot path: What's the most expensive operation per request? Why?
  2. Right-sizing: Is the chosen instance type / model / DB tier the

smallest one that meets SLO?

  1. Cleanup: What happens to old data? Old logs? Old branch

environments?

Pass criteria

  • ✅ Use skill cost-model to document explicit $ numbers
  • ✅ Choose smallest LLM model that meets quality SLO (haiku before sonnet,

sonnet before opus)

  • ✅ Retention policy for logs, metrics, old data

Common fail

❌ Defaulting to Opus / GPT-4 when Haiku would work. Test on Haiku first.

Pillar 6 — Sustainability (env / energy)

Questions

  1. Workload efficiency: Is the code O(n log n) when it could be O(n)?
  2. Idle resources: Can dev environments scale to zero overnight?
  3. Data minimization: Do we collect / store data we never query?

Pass criteria

  • ✅ Hot loop complexity documented
  • ✅ Non-prod resources have shutdown schedules
  • ✅ Data lifecycle covers ingestion, retention, deletion

Common fail

❌ Logs at debug level in prod, never reviewed. Waste of storage + carbon.

Output format — add to ARCH

## Well-Architected review

### 1. Operational excellence
- Metrics: <list>
- Deploy path: <link to runbook>
- Verdict: PASS | RISKS LISTED

### 2. Security
- Trust boundaries: <list>
- Data classification: <PII / PHI / PCI / none>
- Verdict: PASS | RISKS LISTED

### 3. Reliability
- Failure modes: <link to pre-mortem>
- Idempotency: <yes/no per endpoint>
- Verdict: PASS | RISKS LISTED

### 4. Performance
- SLOs: p99=<ms>, error_rate=<%>, availability=<%>
- Verdict: PASS | RISKS LISTED

### 5. Cost
- Per-request cost: $<amount>
- Verdict: PASS | RISKS LISTED

### 6. Sustainability
- Hot-path complexity: O(<n>)
- Verdict: PASS | N/A | RISKS LISTED

## Open risks (rolled up)

<bullet list of all RISKS LISTED items + mitigation in plan>

When PASS is acceptable with risks listed

Not every architecture is bulletproof. PASS-with-risks is OK if:

  • Each risk is explicit (not hand-waved)
  • Each risk has either a mitigation in the plan OR explicit acceptance

by the user

  • The pre-mortem section addresses the top-3 risk-score items

Gate:plan can approve a PASS-with-risks; gate:ship needs the mitigations shipped.

Compartilhar X LinkedIn